Two biopics about the Deep Throat star are in the works. Hopefully, they acknowledge the limits of her tale—and how much the adult industry has changed.

AP Images

We'll be hearing a lot about Linda Lovelace in 2012. This June marks the 40th anniversary of the release of Deep Throat, the
classic adult film that starred her. In commemoration of that milestone, Hollywood filmmakers are in the process of producing not one, but two, biopics
of the late porn star: both Lovelace, with Amanda Seyfried in the title role, and Inferno: A Linda Lovelace Story, starring Malin
Akerman (who replaced Lindsay Lohan after a whirlwind of tabloid drama).

The fact that there will be two competing Linda Lovelace stories coming out in succession isn't such a surprise. Think of it as a pornier version of
the phenomenon that brought us both Friends with Benefits and No Strings Attached in the summer of 2011. Far more interesting is the
sudden fascination with the woman behind Deep Throat—and what, exactly, her twin biopics will attempt to tell us about her life, her work,
and our modern relationship to the adult industry.

Instead of using the 40th anniversary of 'Deep Throat' to decry the evils of porn, we might be better served by noting how far the industry has come

Linda Lovelace's tale is both compelling and tragic. Drawn into the world of adult entertainment by husband Chuck Traynor, Lovelace was catapulted to
international fame with the release of Deep Throat, one of the first pornographic films to garner any kind of mainstream media attention.
Alas, fame did not lead to happiness. Instead, Lovelace's post-Deep Throat years found her leaving the world of porn, struggling with drug
addiction, and ultimately allying with anti-porn crusaders like Andrea Dworkin and Catherine MacKinnon, fortifying their claims against the adult
industry with tales of her own mistreatment and abuse. But even that did not result in a redemptive denouement for Lovelace: She later claimed that, in
the end, the anti-porn feminists had exploited her as well.

Given the drama and tragedy of Lovelace's story, it's easy to see how it makes a compelling film. And living as we do in a world that's "gone porn"—at
least if you believe the countless trend pieces about the topic—it's
almost impossible to not try and draw some broader lesson about the modern world from Linda Lovelace's tragic tale. But leaning too heavily on the
Lovelace story in an attempt to understand the modern world is a mistake. For as much as the success of Deep Throat informed and shaped the
trajectory of adult entertainment for years to come, the adult industry that existed in the '70s bears little resemblance to the one that creates the
porn many of us enjoy today.

At the time that Lovelace shocked the world with her prodigious fellatio abilities, pornography was technically illegal to produce in the
United States. In fact, it was not until the late '80s, when California v. Freeman
effectively legalized the production of pornography in the state of California, that porn was able to move into a more legitimate space, and away from
the black market ties that enabled and facilitated many of the abuses that Lovelace railed against during her anti-porn crusade.

And the legal status of the adult industry isn't the only thing that's changed. Over the past few decades, numerous factors—political, financial,
and health-related—have worked to professionalize and transform the industry. Greater awareness of STIs and HIV has led to rigorous testing regimens
intended to keep performers safe; government records keeping regulations (also known as 2257 regulations) have forced companies to be on their toes
about proving that their performers are of legal age; and, most recently, rampant piracy has forced companies to professionalize and produce quality
products or ultimately shut down. True, Porn Valley still isn't home to anything resembling a typical office environment, but it's dramatically
different from the mob-run free for all that existed in the Deep Throat days. Tellingly, the closest thing that 2012 has to a Linda Lovelace
is adult performer-turned-actress Sasha Grey (who, incidentally, is featured in Matthew Wilder's Inferno)—and though Grey seems to have no
love for the industry that made her a household name, she's never once described her former work environment in anything but the most professional
terms.

It remains to be seen how Hollywood will ultimately frame the story of Linda Lovelace and the industry that thrust her into the spotlight. But I'd
offer that, instead of using the 40th anniversary of Deep Throat as a time to decry the assumed evils and abuses of the world of porn, we
might all be better served by taking a moment to be grateful for how dramatically far the industry has come. I'm not sure what sort of lesson audiences
will take home from seeing Malin Akerman and Amanda Seyfried reenact the story of Linda Lovelace. But I think it's pretty clear what lesson the adult
industry learned from the woman herself.

About the Author

Most Popular

Writing used to be a solitary profession. How did it become so interminably social?

Whether we’re behind the podium or awaiting our turn, numbing our bottoms on the chill of metal foldout chairs or trying to work some life into our terror-stricken tongues, we introverts feel the pain of the public performance. This is because there are requirements to being a writer. Other than being a writer, I mean. Firstly, there’s the need to become part of the writing “community”, which compels every writer who craves self respect and success to attend community events, help to organize them, buzz over them, and—despite blitzed nerves and staggering bowels—present and perform at them. We get through it. We bully ourselves into it. We dose ourselves with beta blockers. We drink. We become our own worst enemies for a night of validation and participation.

Even when a dentist kills an adored lion, and everyone is furious, there’s loftier righteousness to be had.

Now is the point in the story of Cecil the lion—amid non-stop news coverage and passionate social-media advocacy—when people get tired of hearing about Cecil the lion. Even if they hesitate to say it.

But Cecil fatigue is only going to get worse. On Friday morning, Zimbabwe’s environment minister, Oppah Muchinguri, called for the extradition of the man who killed him, the Minnesota dentist Walter Palmer. Muchinguri would like Palmer to be “held accountable for his illegal action”—paying a reported $50,000 to kill Cecil with an arrow after luring him away from protected land. And she’s far from alone in demanding accountability. This week, the Internet has served as a bastion of judgment and vigilante justice—just like usual, except that this was a perfect storm directed at a single person. It might be called an outrage singularity.

Forget credit hours—in a quest to cut costs, universities are simply asking students to prove their mastery of a subject.

MANCHESTER, Mich.—Had Daniella Kippnick followed in the footsteps of the hundreds of millions of students who have earned university degrees in the past millennium, she might be slumping in a lecture hall somewhere while a professor droned. But Kippnick has no course lectures. She has no courses to attend at all. No classroom, no college quad, no grades. Her university has no deadlines or tenure-track professors.

Instead, Kippnick makes her way through different subject matters on the way to a bachelor’s in accounting. When she feels she’s mastered a certain subject, she takes a test at home, where a proctor watches her from afar by monitoring her computer and watching her over a video feed. If she proves she’s competent—by getting the equivalent of a B—she passes and moves on to the next subject.

The Wall Street Journal’s eyebrow-raising story of how the presidential candidate and her husband accepted cash from UBS without any regard for the appearance of impropriety that it created.

The Swiss bank UBS is one of the biggest, most powerful financial institutions in the world. As secretary of state, Hillary Clinton intervened to help it out with the IRS. And after that, the Swiss bank paid Bill Clinton $1.5 million for speaking gigs. TheWall Street Journal reported all that and more Thursday in an article that highlights huge conflicts of interest that the Clintons have created in the recent past.

The piece begins by detailing how Clinton helped the global bank.

“A few weeks after Hillary Clinton was sworn in as secretary of state in early 2009, she was summoned to Geneva by her Swiss counterpart to discuss an urgent matter. The Internal Revenue Service was suing UBS AG to get the identities of Americans with secret accounts,” the newspaper reports. “If the case proceeded, Switzerland’s largest bank would face an impossible choice: Violate Swiss secrecy laws by handing over the names, or refuse and face criminal charges in U.S. federal court. Within months, Mrs. Clinton announced a tentative legal settlement—an unusual intervention by the top U.S. diplomat. UBS ultimately turned over information on 4,450 accounts, a fraction of the 52,000 sought by the IRS.”

There’s no way this man could be president, right? Just look at him: rumpled and scowling, bald pate topped by an entropic nimbus of white hair. Just listen to him: ranting, in his gravelly Brooklyn accent, about socialism. Socialism!

And yet here we are: In the biggest surprise of the race for the Democratic presidential nomination, this thoroughly implausible man, Bernie Sanders, is a sensation.

He is drawing enormous crowds—11,000 in Phoenix, 8,000 in Dallas, 2,500 in Council Bluffs, Iowa—the largest turnout of any candidate from any party in the first-to-vote primary state. He has raised $15 million in mostly small donations, to Hillary Clinton’s $45 million—and unlike her, he did it without holding a single fundraiser. Shocking the political establishment, it is Sanders—not Martin O’Malley, the fresh-faced former two-term governor of Maryland; not Joe Biden, the sitting vice president—to whom discontented Democratic voters looking for an alternative to Clinton have turned.

An attack on an American-funded military group epitomizes the Obama Administration’s logistical and strategic failures in the war-torn country.

Last week, the U.S. finally received some good news in Syria:.After months of prevarication, Turkey announced that the American military could launch airstrikes against Islamic State positions in Syria from its base in Incirlik. The development signaled that Turkey, a regional power, had at last agreed to join the fight against ISIS.

The announcement provided a dose of optimism in a conflict that has, in the last four years, killed over 200,000 and displaced millions more. Days later, however, the positive momentum screeched to a halt. Earlier this week, fighters from the al-Nusra Front, an Islamist group aligned with al-Qaeda, reportedly captured the commander of Division 30, a Syrian militia that receives U.S. funding and logistical support, in the countryside north of Aleppo. On Friday, the offensive escalated: Al-Nusra fighters attacked Division 30 headquarters, killing five and capturing others. According to Agence France Presse, the purpose of the attack was to obtain sophisticated weapons provided by the Americans.

The Islamic State is no mere collection of psychopaths. It is a religious group with carefully considered beliefs, among them that it is a key agent of the coming apocalypse. Here’s what that means for its strategy—and for how to stop it.

What is the Islamic State?

Where did it come from, and what are its intentions? The simplicity of these questions can be deceiving, and few Western leaders seem to know the answers. In December, The New York Times published confidential comments by Major General Michael K. Nagata, the Special Operations commander for the United States in the Middle East, admitting that he had hardly begun figuring out the Islamic State’s appeal. “We have not defeated the idea,” he said. “We do not even understand the idea.” In the past year, President Obama has referred to the Islamic State, variously, as “not Islamic” and as al-Qaeda’s “jayvee team,” statements that reflected confusion about the group, and may have contributed to significant strategic errors.

During the multi-country press tour for Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation, not even Jon Stewart has dared ask Tom Cruise about Scientology.

During the media blitz for Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation over the past two weeks, Tom Cruise has seemingly been everywhere. In London, he participated in a live interview at the British Film Institute with the presenter Alex Zane, the movie’s director, Christopher McQuarrie, and a handful of his fellow cast members. In New York, he faced off with Jimmy Fallon in a lip-sync battle on The Tonight Show and attended the Monday night premiere in Times Square. And, on Tuesday afternoon, the actor recorded an appearance on The Daily Show With Jon Stewart, where he discussed his exercise regimen, the importance of a healthy diet, and how he still has all his own hair at 53.

Stewart, who during his career has won two Peabody Awards for public service and the Orwell Award for “distinguished contribution to honesty and clarity in public language,” represented the most challenging interviewer Cruise has faced on the tour, during a challenging year for the actor. In April, HBO broadcast Alex Gibney’s documentary Going Clear, a film based on the book of the same title by Lawrence Wright exploring the Church of Scientology, of which Cruise is a high-profile member. The movie alleges, among other things, that the actor personally profited from slave labor (church members who were paid 40 cents an hour to outfit the star’s airplane hangar and motorcycle), and that his former girlfriend, the actress Nazanin Boniadi, was punished by the Church by being forced to do menial work after telling a friend about her relationship troubles with Cruise. For Cruise “not to address the allegations of abuse,” Gibney said in January, “seems to me palpably irresponsible.” But in The Daily Show interview, as with all of Cruise’s other appearances, Scientology wasn’t mentioned.

Some say the so-called sharing economy has gotten away from its central premise—sharing.

This past March, in an up-and-coming neighborhood of Portland, Maine, a group of residents rented a warehouse and opened a tool-lending library. The idea was to give locals access to everyday but expensive garage, kitchen, and landscaping tools—such as chainsaws, lawnmowers, wheelbarrows, a giant cider press, and soap molds—to save unnecessary expense as well as clutter in closets and tool sheds.

The residents had been inspired by similar tool-lending libraries across the country—in Columbus, Ohio; in Seattle, Washington; in Portland, Oregon. The ethos made sense to the Mainers. “We all have day jobs working to make a more sustainable world,” says Hazel Onsrud, one of the Maine Tool Library’s founders, who works in renewable energy. “I do not want to buy all of that stuff.”

A controversial treatment shows promise, especially for victims of trauma.

It’s straight out of a cartoon about hypnosis: A black-cloaked charlatan swings a pendulum in front of a patient, who dutifully watches and ping-pongs his eyes in turn. (This might be chased with the intonation, “You are getting sleeeeeepy...”)

Unlike most stereotypical images of mind alteration—“Psychiatric help, 5 cents” anyone?—this one is real. An obscure type of therapy known as EMDR, or Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing, is gaining ground as a potential treatment for people who have experienced severe forms of trauma.

Here’s the idea: The person is told to focus on the troubling image or negative thought while simultaneously moving his or her eyes back and forth. To prompt this, the therapist might move his fingers from side to side, or he might use a tapping or waving of a wand. The patient is told to let her mind go blank and notice whatever sensations might come to mind. These steps are repeated throughout the session.